|
ElecHeadMatt posted:Holy gently caress, been off the grid for a while now (moved out to San Francisco and started the new job Where'd you get a job? Awesome reel by the way, but two small crits. Ditch the plane shot. I know you're proud of it (as you should be) and it's a nice shot, but I feel that the quality of the end result is below everything else on the reel. And that's a compliment, because you have set a very high bar for yourself with the quality of your work! I know it would hurt, and I know you want to show off your comp skills, but it just seems kind of off. Don't hit me! Also that blue ball logo thingy...I'd ditch the breakdown of that because it doesn't really show anything other than "this thing had several pieces on several layers" which is kind of a given in any piece. There's no "ohhhh that's how he did it!" moment with the breakdown. Other than that absolutely fantastic work. Extremely high quality!
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2008 18:14
|
|
) and this thread is like the supercharged full tilt cokehead older brother of the old one and I thoroughly enjoy it.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Man I was so close to getting an internship with Side F/X. One of the alums of our grad program worked there and gave me an in road and I went through the interviews only to get to the final one and have the interviewer realize I still had a year of grad school left: Him: "Ohhhhhhhhhh.....we want somebody that was just about to graduate so we can hire them after we train them." Me: "ohhhhhh.....I still have a year of school left..." Him: "Yeah....." Me: "Yeah......*cough*" Him: "Well...have a good day!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 16:02
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:Working for side FX is the fastest way to get a job at a studio. Half the houdini td's I work with worked at side fx at one point. drat ...yeah I still kinda want to do it at one point. He told me to give him a call when I graduated but I never did. Kicking myself now. But I have a good job with good work so I guess it's not all bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 17:53
|
|
.
|
Kuato posted:Did a little more on this. It's at about 4k trinagles now, Thats reasonable for a modern game engine right? Im pretty sure i have the structure nailed down now so its mostly a matter of finishing the uvw mapping, adding a bunch of crap and giving it some kind of interior. Any critiques/ suggestions would be great. Lookin' good, but there's no reason the "three ropes" thing should actually be three individual ropes. Learn to cheat it with a texture and some implied definition in the model and save yourself valuable polys!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2008 08:03
|
|
|
tuna posted:Hey guys, I've just finished sitting down all morning watching video encoding progress bars for my animation reel (for the 2nd time), so here's a web version while I figure out how the hell to send it to studios for employment. I'd love to hear feedback if you have any, although I won't be fixing anything any more in this reel as I have to send it out at some point Excellent work. No crits really. Excellent work, short and succint demo reel with no unnecessary fluff. Good job and good luck! I seriously doubt you'll be hard pressed to find a job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2008 16:41
|
|
|
tuna posted:Haha, I think I've uttered these words after just about everything I've ever done in 3D. Congrats on the front page plug. I almost posted with a stairs reference and then decided to not be lame.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2008 00:49
|
|
|
I am about to pull my loving hair out. Camera mapping/projections. I've never really done this so this is more R&D/proof-of-concept for me. Basic Idea: I animated scene with train in place and simple geometry placeholders for building. Scene takes place on wide open expanse so ground place extends to "horizon/infinity." Rendered out first frame and took that into photoshop to pain the matte. Now obviously I need to paint a lot bigger than the first frame's composition because the camera moves around in the "scene" and needs some stuff off camera so you don't see white edges of the matte. So I have my one camera that is animated...which means I can't use that camera for the projection obviously so I create a second camera to project the matte. The problem is I can't line it up with the original frame because there is no ability to see the projection in real time. So I move the camera to a starting point..render the frame and go from there. I can't see to ever get it though. I can get it roughly close, but then an edge shows up or something. It's ridiculous! I need projection help  .
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2008 21:16
|
|
|
PowerLlama posted:Try copying your camera, deleting the keyframes after frame 1, and using that camera as the projection. edit: poo poo lemme start this over (in case anyone saw the old post) I mentioned in my first post that I did have a second camera that was to project the camera. However I can't just make it a duplicate of the first camera because the matte is actually much bigger than the frame size (720p). This is because it's basically a world matte so that the camera has room to move around. So the problem is moving the projection around so that the little bit that is supposed to show up in the first frame actually matches the position of the train and buildings. BonoMan fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 3, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2008 21:53
|
|
|
balistic posted:Normally for a camera map what you do is duplicate your shot camera, increase its field of view (or decrease the mm of the lens), then paint your matte based on a static render from the new wide-angle camera. Don't extend the image in Photoshop or it won't line back up when you re-project it. Yeah poo poo I was afraid of that. It was really just a "lets try it" thing. And I apparently did it backwards. The problem was the camera would move through the matte more than usual. It's a pretty big camera move and we just wanted to see if it would work. I'm afraid that even just increasing the FOV of the projection camera would probably still not work and leave me with too restricted of a move space, because it was just too large a camera move. Looks like I screwed myself from the start. Even so, I used the static render from the camera move's first frame as my matte template...and even if increasing the size of the matte was the wrong way of going about it, I still wish there was a way to do a semi-accurate real-time viz of the camera projection. Thanks for the info though! I'll probably just make it a smaller camera move, use your technique, and adapt the matte for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 05:33
|
|
|
Ha finally got that camera projection problem fixed. Left it alone over the holiday...came back to it and just stared at the projection camera and said "what if I make the horizontal and vertical aperture match the res of the image?" The world matte is 3900X3000 (don't ask me why) so I just made the aperture 3.9X3 and voila! Works like a charm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2008 21:35
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:1. This is the reflection precomp. (Just a fancy word for a composition that will be nested in another composition) Just a quick note...the thick black lines on your texture absolutely destroy the work. They completely ruin it. Also there is no proper shadows....just a faint shadow with no thick shadows near where the tires actually touch. It could be pretty good (you have some nice camera matching and the modeling is sufficient), but those two things just take me right out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2008 07:45
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:Do you mean the thick black lines on the hood/headlights of the car, etc? or the outlines from the matting/motion blue or the CG car? The lighter outline of the CG itself can be taken away with settings, but if you were commenting on the model itself, yeah it's pretty basic. Oh ok well that's more reassuring! Yeah I'm referring to the actual black lines on the texture. They make it seem like a toy car with the lines "painted on" to hint at the gaps in real cars where the panels come together. Are you rendering out of Maya? Mental Ray?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2008 18:52
|
|
|
forelle posted:Anyone else heading to Siggraph in a couple of weeks? need 3+ years experience and filming in NZ? Hmmmm.....wonder what that could be. Also I'm jealous Balistic...  . I haven't been to SIGGRAPH since 2000 in NOLA.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2008 15:55
|
|
|
balistic posted:Actually this will be my first SIGGRAPH since 2000 as well. Yes it was and somehow late one night we ended up at a Sony party at 3 in the morning in some loving warehouse in the middle of nowhere. Surrealllllll. edit: Oh it was 106 here the other day .
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2008 03:16
|
|
|
The new Ultrasharps are pieces of poo poo too (unless they fixed something I wasn't aware of). The color shift and viewing angle were absolutely abysmal. We returned a bunch of them before settling back on CRTs for the time being. I don't know what they did but they hosed something up...hopefully it got fixed. Anothing to think about is 32bit vs 64 bit. If you're using XP/Vista 32 then 4 gigs of RAM really won't help that much. In fact you'll most likely only be able to use 3gigs of it and ONLY (roughly) 1.6 gigs per process. A lot of people think that they can get more RAM and have Maya use it all, but that's not true. All 32 bit processes cap at about 1.6 gigs of RAM usage and you only need maybe a gig more to handle other extraneous processes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2008 17:40
|
|
|
DefMech posted:When were those bad Ultrasharps from? I remember hearing a bunch of bad stuff about Dell for a while, but I thought they had everything fixed up again. At least at the higher end. We got these maybe around feb-april? I can't quite remember, but it was around that time. We got some Ultrasharps and had seen on the web that some people were complaining about the color and sure enough, when they came in they had some major problems. Things that the normal user would probably be ok with, but it was absolutely unacceptable from a graphics point of view. Several iterations have come out since then though so maybe they got everything wrapped up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2008 20:40
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:I also want to endorse the quadcore as they are very cheap and I love mine. Also, what was said earlier is true. Vista is fine, Microsoft is still supporting XP and we don't do that "M$" poo poo here...just for future reference.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 15:35
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:I disagree wholeheartedly that "Vista is fine". How many studios have made the switch and why? I have had nothing but trouble with Vista and can't wait to put XP64 back on. "M$" and "Windoze" and "Crapintosh" are considered childish things to say around here..that's why they're looked down upon. Use them outsie of this thread and most people (especially SH/SC or GBS) will rail you. Vista, I think, has received a lot of unfair praise at the hand of knee-jerkers, arrogant apple ads, and people who haven't used it at all or barely at all passing some sort of 'final judgement' on it. It, of course, suffered from any new OS hiccups that are expected to happen. It's a bigger tech change from XP to Vista than from 2k to XP since 2K and XP are on the same kernel. It's going to have problems at first. But in my experience they were nothing major and Vista 64 is leaps over XP64 both in terms of performance and general support. XP64 seemed like it was going to be great and then just hit a brick wall mainly in terms of support. It was introduced too late into the cycle when devs were already a.) entrenched in XP32 or b.) looking ahead toward Vista. This might be some unpopular opinion here but I don't put much stock in Gnomon. Them saying using Vista is "brave" is just another example of schlock that is thrown out by people that, most likely, haven't even used Vista extensively but are jumping on the "oh it's cool to hate Vista because the blogosphere told me it was." Most people that are having trouble with Vista have incompatible hardware or things that have lovely devs who won't update the drivers properly. Case in point is the Mojave project where Microsoft introduced the new Mojave OS to people who just gushed over how great it was...then they pull back the curtain and it's just Vista. It goes a long way to show the kind of knee jerk Vista hating action that's going on. I'm not trying to direct this all at you but "Lolz Vista sucks" has just gotten tiring and most problems with it are pebcak.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 22:04
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:
Oh it's cool not everyone has to like it, but what are you referring to here? "Xp was put in a Vista update?" That doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2008 21:51
|
|
|
Gonna have to second the Wacom for 3D stuff. Of course I have a Wacom and mouse hooked up so, if for any reason I need to use a mouse, I can quickly switch back and forth. It takes a bit to get used to using the Wacom in Maya, but once it clicks it's awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2008 05:31
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:
Looks great except for one detail. The mottled specular on the left hand side of the screen (where the highlight hits by the chair). There isn't a need for such a strong specular map there. Most of those tiles, while having a mottled color, usually have a fairly uniform gloss to them. But that's just me. It might be too uninteresting with a uniform gloss. Maybe just tone it down a bit, because at the moment it looks like a nasty sticky floor on that highlight. Like so much dirt and poo poo has been tracked down that it blocks the specular.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2008 16:59
|
|
|
Battle Bott posted:I want to know how much longer until it is available. Honestly....it'll probably never see the light of day. I hate to be a Debby Downer, but I'm assuming that video came out of SIGGRAPH and holy gently caress I have seen way way way too many awesome industry changing demos only for them to completely disappear and never be heard from again. This is usually because the idea is sound but implementation rarely is. Or relies on very specific parameters like very little motion...no fast motion...no blurring. Things like that. Or that it takes 14 days to apply the effect to one video or something. You know..things that aren't immediately noticeable in the demo video. You never know, but I wouldn't get my hopes up .
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2008 14:22
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I know someone picked on the left side of the image but that's my favorite part. The extreme left, both the wall and the floor just look great to me. Extreme light angles typically emphasize imperfections in that kind of floor and you handled it just perfectly. You're right that extreme light angles bring out imperfections, which are always a nice detail, but the reason I picked on the left side wasn't because there were imperfections brought out, but rather because the imperfections that I'm seeing aren't what I would say are typical to that type of floor (at least in my experience). You ever have something sticky spill on a floor and then get cleaned up but still leave a slight sticky residue? And then as a week passes people walk all over it and slowly build up track dirt that sticks to just the sticky parts and ends up forming a slightly more matte finish on those areas? That's what I'm seeing as opposed to a normal wear and tear effect on that type of floor. But that's strictly just in my experience and I'm sure he did his research.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2008 18:49
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Haha. Nope. I just played around with the specular till it looked all dramatic n' poo poo. Clients ALWAYS pick the wrong one. Hah I kid I kid. You're right though, I didn't think about how it would flatten it out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2008 17:06
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Learn this from memory, and develop a photographic memory for all the images: (start at the plugins section...) Goddamnit I want VRay for Maya. MentalRay is such an utter clusterfuck of a program. And I'm sorry but everything in Maya/mentalray is labeled so retardedly. It's like they have nobody working on UI workflow/funtionality. "What's 'maximum irradial tangental magnitude functional awareness' do?" "Controls the brightness." "Why not just loving call it 'brightness' then?" It's like it's artificially made harder just so you can have "specialists." There's no reason for the labeling to be that obtuse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2008 00:16
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Why dont you get vray for maya? How stable is the Beta? I had heard about it, but thought it wasn't worth it yet. Plus we just finished a big show last week so changing renderers wasn't an option until now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2008 04:25
|
|
|
Kirby posted:okay this is going to sound really convoluted and silly but here it goes. Angle of Incidence?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 06:31
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Well holy crap. Eh. Demos like that are always kind of "well that's cool as poo poo!" but rarely translate into anything useful (usually you try to use it yourself and lo and behold it's ten times clunkier than you were led to believe!). It is pretty sweet in a sketchup kinda way and I liked a lot of the UI methods (scribbling things away and that cool stuff), but ultimately I don't think it's useful for any detailed work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 02:58
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:I know it's been said again and again that UV mapping is hell but I would greatly appreceate some help. Could some of you pitch some good tutorials or tips to make better projections? I'm currently working on unwrapping the train I showed but unfortunately I think my technique is really too slow, ideas anyone? What is your technique?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2008 18:00
|
|
|
Cornlight posted:I am just using 3dsmax. I don't use 3DSMax, but I'm assuming that yeah it's because your hole object doesn't have caps. That usually fucks up boolean operations. You could find a way to fill the hole or select the top of the can and remove faces where the hole is supposed to be and reshape from there. Maya has a "fill hole" command where you select an edge that is part of the hole and it fills it. Look for something similar?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2008 16:43
|
|
|
Yasha From Russia posted:I started studying animation in June and have just completed my final project for the year. We had 3 weeks to model, texture, rig, animate and everything else in 3 weeks. here is what i came up with: Not terrible...I kinda dig the song. My main problem is that most of the movements and actions don't feel like they have real weight behind them or are working on wonky physics. Study motion and the principles of animation a little more and it will be worlds better next time. It was a lot better than I expected for a "I just started" animation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2008 19:46
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:There's been some cool stauff posted in this thread since I last posted I would love to see a realtime vid to see how you accomplish that much work in half a day. Where's his genitalia? It looks really good, but if you're going to model it that realistically, then give him some genitalia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2009 18:37
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:Continuing my mission to improve my modeling and put together a showreel to get a modeling gig. This one is about 4 hours work at this point. Hands and feet have not been touched at all yet. Hair is just a visual aid at this point. I would hope that people could recognise the likeness although the proportions are not quite there yet. Don't know who it is yet, but yeah it looks good except for some slight proportion irregularities. For being as lean, cut as he is the upper thigh/hip area has just a bit too much mass, that or the upper body needs to V out just a tad bit more. Subtle changes of course, looks great overall except still no genitalia and it really stands out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
Akaikami posted:IGGY?! And if so then, yeah the thighs need to be chicken bone thin. Saw that guy last year and he's the skinniest human alive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
Akaikami posted:http://fi.somethingawful.com/is/img136/3531/igi5ks3.jpg I can't see that pic, but here: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/03/05/iggy_pop_wideweb__470x297,0.jpg They're pretty skinny.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
spottedfeces posted:Texture Update: Couple of things. It looks like a model. This is due to inappropriate use of DoF and size of details. The carpet texture is way too large in its tiling. The print should be smaller. It appears like a swath of real carpet was put in a model building. The cup/water tank is fine but everything else just appears a little too oversized which makes it appear model like again. Also need to up the photon count or whatever so the walls will be smoother.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 23:55
|
|
|
Yup and the highend3d.com listserv have been my choice sources of info sine Maya 1.0!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 07:09
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I love the OZ concepts and environments Hinchu. Good quality, but it looks JUST like Mr. Incredible. In fact I thought you did a quick sculpt of him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2009 15:09
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:You have some major texture seam issues going on. With the banana and the pear. For a still like this you can get away with moving the seams to the back of the banana/pear. Also, as said, more bounce.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Hinchu posted:
What version of Oz was this? Return to Oz? The Wiz? I can never frickin' remember...looks good though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2009 05:57
|
|
